The Pope at War

The Pope at War Plot Summary

Introduction

In the early months of 1939, as Europe teetered on the brink of catastrophe, a tall, ascetic figure emerged onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli had just been elected Pope Pius XII, ascending to the papacy at perhaps the most perilous moment in modern European history. His election came just weeks after Hitler had consolidated his grip on what remained of Czechoslovakia and as Mussolini strengthened his alliance with Nazi Germany. The new pope faced an immediate and profound dilemma: how to position the Catholic Church as the world descended into unprecedented violence and moral darkness. This historical narrative explores the agonizing choices faced by a religious leader caught between institutional survival and moral witness during humanity's darkest hour. Through meticulous research and balanced analysis, we discover how Pius XII navigated between competing pressures: maintaining Vatican neutrality, protecting Catholics across Europe, and responding to mounting atrocities that challenged the very moral authority of the church he led. The story reveals timeless questions about the responsibilities of moral leadership in times of crisis, the limits of diplomatic pragmatism, and the consequences of institutional self-preservation when confronted with systematic evil. Anyone interested in the moral complexities of World War II, religious leadership during conflict, or the enduring tensions between pragmatic diplomacy and ethical imperatives will find this account both illuminating and thought-provoking.

Chapter 1: The Vatican's Precarious Position: Pius XII's Election (1939)

In March 1939, as war clouds gathered over Europe, the College of Cardinals elected Eugenio Pacelli as Pope Pius XII. The timing could not have been more significant - Nazi Germany was expanding its territorial ambitions, Fascist Italy was strengthening its alliance with Hitler, and tensions across Europe were reaching a breaking point. Unlike his predecessor Pius XI, who had become increasingly vocal in his criticism of fascism and Nazism, Pacelli was known for his diplomatic temperament and cautious approach. This transition in Vatican leadership occurred just six months before Hitler would invade Poland, triggering the Second World War. The new pope brought unique qualifications to this crisis. Having spent twelve years as papal nuncio in Germany and then serving as Vatican Secretary of State, he possessed intimate knowledge of European politics and the Nazi regime. He was fluent in multiple languages, intellectually brilliant, and deeply pious - qualities that impressed both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Yet these strengths came with significant limitations. Pius XII was cautious by nature, uncomfortable with confrontation, and deeply concerned about protecting the institutional church above all else. His election was greeted with satisfaction by both Mussolini and Hitler, who believed the diplomatic Pacelli would be easier to manage than his more outspoken predecessor. Within days of his election, Pius XII reached out to Hitler through diplomatic channels, expressing hope for improved relations between the Vatican and the Third Reich. He also instructed the Vatican newspaper to moderate its criticism of the German government. Behind the scenes, the pope engaged in secret negotiations with Hitler through Prince Philipp von Hessen, the Nazi leader's personal emissary. These confidential meetings, only recently revealed through Vatican archives opened in 2020, show how the new pope sought to establish a working relationship with the Nazi regime despite its persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. The prince conveyed Hitler's desire to reach an understanding with the Vatican, while the pope expressed hope that the Führer would ease anti-church measures. As spring turned to summer, the pope attempted to position himself as a peacemaker. In May, he proposed an international peace conference involving the five major powers - France, Germany, England, Italy, and Poland. Before making his initiative public, he consulted Mussolini, who initially expressed support but later backtracked after conferring with Hitler. The pope's peace initiative ultimately collapsed when Britain and France grew suspicious of what they perceived as Vatican favoritism toward the Axis powers. This early diplomatic failure foreshadowed the challenges Pius XII would face throughout the war as he attempted to maintain Vatican neutrality while navigating between competing powers. When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the pope faced immediate pressure to condemn the aggression. Poland was overwhelmingly Catholic, and its ambassador begged for papal support. The French and British governments also urged the pope to speak out. However, Pius XII chose a more measured response, explaining to Cardinal Maglione that with forty million Catholics in the Reich, he could not risk exposing them to reprisals. Instead, he offered prayers for Poland while avoiding any explicit condemnation of Germany. This cautious approach established a pattern that would define his papacy throughout the war years - a pattern of diplomatic restraint that prioritized institutional preservation over prophetic moral witness. The Vatican's precarious position in 1939 revealed the fundamental dilemma that would haunt Pius XII throughout the war. As both a spiritual leader with moral authority and the head of a vulnerable sovereign state surrounded by Fascist Italy, the pope had to balance competing responsibilities. His choices in these early months - prioritizing diplomatic caution over moral confrontation - set the stage for the Vatican's controversial wartime role and established tensions that would shape his historical legacy for decades to come.

Chapter 2: Diplomatic Neutrality: Navigating Between Fascism and War (1940-1941)

By mid-1940, Europe had descended into the abyss. Hitler's forces had conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and finally France in a series of stunning victories. Mussolini, eager not to miss his share of the spoils, declared war on France and Britain in June 1940, despite Italy's military unpreparedness. This decision created an even more delicate situation for the Vatican, as the pope was now completely surrounded by a belligerent Fascist state actively participating in the war. The Vatican's position was complicated by its physical location within Fascist Italy. The 1929 Lateran Accords had resolved the "Roman Question" by creating Vatican City as a sovereign state, but the pope remained dependent on good relations with Mussolini's regime. When Italy entered the war, Pius XII faced intense pressure from Italian Catholics who expected their spiritual leader to support the national cause. Catholic newspapers across Italy celebrated the war effort, while bishops blessed troops and called for victory. Archbishop Bartolomasi, head of the military chaplaincy, was particularly vocal in his support for the Fascist cause, urging Catholics to see themselves as soldiers in the "Christian militia." Behind the scenes, Pius XII attempted to limit the conflict through diplomatic channels. He exchanged messages with President Roosevelt and made cautious appeals for peace. Yet these efforts were undermined by his refusal to specifically condemn Axis aggression. When German bombs fell on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and London, the pope spoke only in general terms about the suffering of civilians. His Christmas radio address of 1940 mentioned "atrocities" but named no perpetrators, allowing both sides to interpret his words as they wished. This studied ambiguity preserved the Vatican's neutrality but increasingly frustrated Allied diplomats who looked to the pope for moral leadership. The Vatican's diplomatic balancing act became even more complex when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. For many Catholic leaders, including some in the Vatican, this "crusade against Bolshevism" seemed to align with the Church's longstanding opposition to atheistic communism. Catholic publications throughout Europe framed the Eastern campaign in religious terms, portraying it as a defense of Christian civilization against godless Marxism. This anti-communist sentiment further complicated the Vatican's position, as it created an ideological affinity with one aspect of Axis war aims even as the pope remained officially neutral. Throughout this period, the Vatican maintained diplomatic relations with both sides, becoming an important intelligence hub. Information flowed through the Holy See from various fronts, while Vatican diplomats attempted to mitigate suffering where possible. The pope authorized the Vatican Information Service to help reconnect families separated by the war, and papal relief agencies provided food and medicine to war victims regardless of nationality or religion. These humanitarian efforts, rather than prophetic moral statements, became the hallmark of the pope's wartime leadership. By late 1941, the Vatican's diplomatic neutrality had evolved into a complex and sometimes contradictory position. While officially maintaining impartiality, the Holy See had developed working relationships with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that sometimes appeared to legitimize their regimes. The pope's consistent prioritization of quiet diplomacy over public moral witness reflected his conviction that the Church's long-term mission required institutional preservation rather than prophetic confrontation - a position that would be severely tested as the war expanded and the moral questions it posed became ever more stark.

Chapter 3: Silent Witness: The Vatican's Response to Nazi Atrocities (1942)

By 1942, the Nazi regime had moved from persecution to systematic extermination of European Jews. Reports of mass killings reached the Vatican through multiple channels - from diplomats, clergy, and Jewish organizations. In March, a Ukrainian Catholic archbishop wrote directly to Pius XII describing the "almost diabolical" German murder of Jews in his region. Father Pirro Scavizzi, a military chaplain who had witnessed atrocities firsthand, delivered detailed accounts to the pope. "The massacre of the Jews in Ukraine," he reported in May 1942, "is now complete. They want to likewise finish off with their system of mass killings in Poland and Germany." Despite these graphic reports, Pius XII maintained his public silence about the Holocaust. In private audiences, he expressed horror at the crimes being committed, but he consistently refused to issue any public condemnation naming the perpetrators. When pressed by Allied diplomats to speak out, Vatican officials offered various justifications: the Germans would simply deny the accusations; public statements might worsen conditions for Catholics under Nazi rule; and the Holy See could be more effective working through quiet diplomatic channels. The pope told Father Scavizzi that he occasionally thought of excommunicating those committing atrocities but had decided against it, believing it would not stop the slaughter and might even spur greater anger against Jews. The pope's Christmas address of 1942 contained his most explicit reference to the ongoing genocide, yet even this was notably oblique. He referred to "hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction." This vague language allowed both sides to interpret his words as they wished. The Nazi press claimed the pope was referring to German civilians suffering from Allied bombing, while Allied nations saw it as a weak acknowledgment of the Holocaust. When British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden asked for clarification about whether the pope was indeed referring to the Jews, Vatican officials declined to provide a clear answer. The Vatican's primary concern regarding Jews focused not on the Nazi extermination campaign but on the application of racial laws to baptized Jews, whom the Church considered Catholics. Cardinal Maglione repeatedly sent Father Tacchi Venturi to complain to Mussolini's officials about the unfairness of applying laws aimed at Jews to those the church considered Catholics. This narrow focus on protecting converts rather than Jews as a whole reflected the institutional priorities that guided Vatican policy during the Holocaust. When the French ambassador asked Cardinal Maglione what the Holy See was doing to help Jews in general, the cardinal replied that the Vatican "does what it can, but cannot do much." Allied diplomats grew increasingly frustrated with the pope's reticence. D'Arcy Osborne, Britain's envoy to the Vatican, took the unusual step of writing directly to Pius XII in July 1942, enclosing a letter from "a devout Catholic" in England who asked: "Why does He not speak out, with names attached, about the really appalling fate of Poles, Jews, Czechs, etc. under the Germans?" The British Foreign Office was even more critical, with one official noting that "Papal timidity becomes ever more blatantly despicable." American envoy Myron Taylor delivered a personal message from President Roosevelt urging action, but the pope remained convinced that public denunciations would only make matters worse. The Vatican's response to Nazi atrocities in 1942 revealed the profound limitations of its diplomatic approach. By prioritizing institutional self-preservation and potential future influence over clear moral witness, the pope maintained the Church's ability to function throughout occupied Europe but at a significant moral cost. This silence in the face of unprecedented evil would haunt the Vatican's legacy long after the war ended, raising profound questions about the responsibilities of moral leadership in times of crisis and the consequences of diplomatic caution when confronted with systematic atrocity.

Chapter 4: Rome Under Siege: The Jewish Roundup and Vatican Calculations (1943)

The summer of 1943 marked a dramatic turning point for Italy and the Vatican. On July 25, following the Allied invasion of Sicily and a vote by the Fascist Grand Council, King Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini and appointed Marshal Pietro Badoglio as the new head of government. This sudden collapse of the Fascist regime after twenty years in power created a precarious situation for the Vatican, which now had to navigate relations with Badoglio's government while preparing for the possibility of German occupation. The Vatican's delicate balancing act became even more complex when Italy announced its armistice with the Allies on September 8, prompting German forces to quickly occupy Rome and effectively take control of northern and central Italy. The German occupation created an unprecedented crisis for Pius XII. The pope now found himself physically surrounded by Nazi forces, with German tanks positioned just outside St. Peter's Square. Ernst von Weizsäcker, the German ambassador to the Holy See, conveyed Hitler's assurance that the Vatican's sovereignty would be respected - but this came with the implicit understanding that the pope would maintain his public silence about German actions. The occupation months saw Rome transformed into a city of fear, hunger, and resistance. The Vatican became a center for humanitarian relief, distributing food and medicine to a suffering population. It also became a refuge for escaped Allied prisoners of war, Italian military officers, and political figures - activities that required constant negotiation with German authorities. On October 16, 1943, German SS troops conducted a razzia (roundup) of Rome's Jewish community. Over a thousand Jews were seized from their homes in the old ghetto and surrounding neighborhoods, held for two days in a military college near the Vatican, and then deported to Auschwitz. Pius XII learned of the roundup early that morning. Among those informing him was Princess Enza Pignatelli, who rushed to speak with the pope, "pushing aside with her elbows those who wanted to stop her." The pope immediately phoned Cardinal Maglione and asked him to summon the German ambassador. Meeting with Weizsäcker that afternoon, the cardinal appealed to his sense of Christian charity and humanity, but carefully avoided making any direct threats about papal public protest. Despite having advance knowledge of the German plans and receiving desperate appeals for intervention, Pius XII made no public protest about the deportation of Rome's Jews. When Osborne, the British envoy, had an audience with him on the day the Jews were being forced onto the train, the pope made no mention of what was happening. Similarly, when the American envoy Harold Tittmann visited the pope the next day, there was no discussion of the fate of Rome's Jews. Of the more than 1,000 Jews deported from Rome on October 18, only 16 would survive. In the months that followed, hundreds more Jews from Rome would be captured and sent north to their deaths, and thousands more from northern Italy. The pope judged it best to say nothing, a decision that would have profound implications for his legacy. The Vatican's primary concern in the aftermath of the roundup appeared to be ensuring that baptized Jews were properly identified and exempted from deportation. On October 20, the Vatican Secretariat of State contacted the German embassy regarding two brothers "of Jewish origin, but converted to Catholicism and baptized," who had been taken in the roundup. This focus on protecting converts rather than Jews as a whole again reflected the institutional priorities that guided Vatican policy. Meanwhile, the pope did authorize Catholic institutions throughout Rome to open their doors to those fleeing persecution, and many convents, monasteries, and other Church properties became refuges for hundreds of Jews. While the pope tacitly approved this assistance, he remained careful not to publicly challenge German authority. The Vatican's response to the Jewish roundup in Rome epitomized the moral dilemma at the heart of Pius XII's wartime leadership. By prioritizing diplomatic caution over public moral witness, the pope maintained the Vatican's ability to provide some practical assistance to those in danger, but at the cost of his moral authority as the spiritual leader of millions. This calculated restraint reflected his conviction that preserving the Church's institutional presence and influence was paramount, even when confronted with atrocities unfolding literally at the Vatican's doorstep. The consequences of this choice would echo far beyond the war years, shaping debates about religious leadership and moral responsibility that continue to this day.

Chapter 5: Liberation and Legacy: Repositioning the Church (1944-1945)

On June 4, 1944, American troops entered Rome, making it the first Axis capital to be liberated. As the Germans retreated northward, Romans poured into the streets to welcome the Allies. The pope appeared at his window overlooking St. Peter's Square to bless the crowds, though he was reportedly annoyed to see an American tank parked below. The liberation marked a dramatic turning point for both Rome and the Vatican, bringing an end to nine months of German occupation and beginning the process of repositioning the Church for the post-war world. In the aftermath of liberation, Pius XII was widely celebrated in Italy as the "savior of Rome." The fact that the Eternal City had been spared major destruction during the German retreat was attributed to his diplomatic influence, though military historians note that Hitler had independently decided not to defend Rome. Nevertheless, the pope's reputation among Romans was enhanced by the Vatican's humanitarian efforts during the occupation and by the shelter it had provided to refugees, including some Jews. Images of the pope visiting bombed areas of Rome in July 1943, his white cassock covered in dust as he comforted survivors, became powerful symbols of papal concern for the suffering of ordinary people. Allied leaders, including General Mark Clark and later Winston Churchill, paid courtesy visits to the Vatican, but these encounters often revealed tensions over the pope's wartime conduct. When Charles de Gaulle met with Pius XII in June, he found the pontiff primarily concerned about the suffering of Germans and the threat of communism rather than Nazi atrocities. The pope told de Gaulle that "Christianity is destined to suffer very cruel ordeals and that only a close union of the European states inspired by Catholicism—Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal—will be able to curb the danger" of Soviet communism. This focus on the communist threat would define Vatican policy in the immediate post-war years. As the war in Europe drew to a close in the spring of 1945, the Vatican began the process of redefining its role in the post-war world. Having survived the conflict with its institutional structure intact, the Church now faced the challenge of addressing its complicated relationship with Fascism and explaining its silence during the Holocaust. In Italy, the Church faced the immediate challenge of distancing itself from its previous support for the Fascist regime. Bishop Colli, who as national director of Catholic Action had repeatedly urged all good Catholics to support the Axis war, now issued new instructions to the membership: "Italian Catholic Action has nothing to repudiate in its past work." This denial of complicity would become a common refrain among Church officials who had previously supported Mussolini. The Vatican also had to navigate the complex politics of post-war Italy, where the Communist Party had emerged from the resistance as a powerful force. The pope was determined to prevent Italy from falling under Communist influence, and he used his considerable moral authority to support the Christian Democratic Party in the crucial 1948 elections. This anti-Communist stance would define Vatican policy throughout the Cold War era, as the Church positioned itself as a bulwark against Soviet influence in Europe. The moral compromises that had characterized the Vatican's response to Nazism were largely set aside as the Church focused on this new ideological battle. In his first major address after Germany's surrender, delivered to the College of Cardinals on June 2, 1945, Pius XII defended his wartime leadership, suggesting that more forceful public statements would have triggered "even greater calamities." This defensive posture would characterize the Vatican's approach to questions about its wartime record in the years to come. Rather than acknowledging any moral failure in its response to the Holocaust, the Church emphasized its humanitarian efforts and the practical assistance it had provided to those in danger. This narrative, while containing elements of truth, avoided confronting the profound moral questions raised by the pope's public silence in the face of unprecedented evil.

Chapter 6: Historical Judgment: The Moral Cost of Institutional Survival

The controversy surrounding Pius XII's wartime leadership began almost immediately after the war and has intensified in subsequent decades. Historical judgment of the pope's actions has evolved through several phases, reflecting changing perspectives on moral leadership, institutional responsibility, and the Holocaust itself. Initially praised for his diplomatic skills and humanitarian efforts, Pius XII faced increasing criticism starting in the 1960s, particularly after Rolf Hochhuth's play "The Deputy" portrayed him as callously indifferent to Jewish suffering. The debate has continued to evolve as new archival materials have become available, most recently with the opening of the Vatican's wartime archives in 2020. At the heart of this historical reassessment lies the fundamental tension between institutional survival and moral witness that defined the Vatican's wartime position. Defenders of Pius XII argue that his diplomatic caution preserved the Church's ability to provide humanitarian assistance and spiritual comfort during the war's darkest hours. They point to the thousands of Jews sheltered in Catholic institutions, the Vatican's extensive relief efforts, and the pope's behind-the-scenes interventions on behalf of persecuted groups. From this perspective, the pope's silence was a strategic necessity that ultimately saved more lives than a public condemnation would have done. Critics, however, maintain that the pope's failure to speak out against the Holocaust represented a profound moral abdication. They argue that as the spiritual leader of hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide, Pius XII had a unique moral authority that could have influenced public opinion and perhaps saved many lives. By prioritizing diplomatic relations and institutional interests over clear moral witness, the pope compromised the Church's fundamental mission and values. As historian John Cornwell argued, the pope's silence reflected a "fatal flaw in the modern papacy: the betrayal of universal moral principles in favor of self-interest." The Vatican's wartime experience offers important lessons about the responsibilities of moral leadership in times of crisis. It demonstrates how institutions, even those built on moral foundations, can become entangled in compromises that prioritize self-preservation over ethical imperatives. The pope's dilemma - whether to risk the Church's institutional position by speaking out against atrocities or to maintain diplomatic silence in hopes of exercising influence through other channels - reflects challenges that continue to face religious and political leaders today. His choices remind us that silence in the face of systematic evil is itself a moral decision with profound consequences. Perhaps the most enduring lesson from this chapter of history is the danger of allowing diplomatic pragmatism to overshadow fundamental moral principles. While Pius XII's cautious approach may have preserved the Vatican's institutional structure through the war, it came at the cost of moral clarity at a time when millions looked to Rome for guidance in humanity's darkest hour. This legacy continues to challenge the Catholic Church and other institutions to reflect on how they balance pragmatic concerns with ethical imperatives, particularly when confronted with systematic human rights abuses or genocide. The story of Pius XII during World War II ultimately reveals the profound tension between institutional pragmatism and prophetic witness that can confront moral leaders in times of crisis. It reminds us that history judges institutions not merely by their survival, but by their willingness to stand for the values they claim to represent, even at considerable risk to their own interests. This lesson remains relevant for religious and secular leaders alike as they navigate the moral complexities of our own troubled times.

Summary

The story of Pope Pius XII during World War II reveals a fundamental tension between institutional pragmatism and moral leadership that defined his papacy. Throughout the conflict, the pope navigated a treacherous diplomatic landscape, maintaining Vatican neutrality while attempting to protect Catholic interests under both Fascist and Nazi regimes. His consistent prioritization of quiet diplomacy over public moral witness reflected his background as a career Vatican diplomat and his belief that the Church's long-term mission required institutional preservation rather than prophetic confrontation. This approach had profound consequences. By maintaining cordial relations with Mussolini's regime and secret diplomatic channels with Hitler, Pius XII preserved the Vatican's ability to function as a humanitarian agency and spiritual center during the war. Yet his silence regarding Nazi atrocities, particularly the Holocaust, created a moral vacuum that has shadowed his legacy ever since. The pope's dilemma offers important lessons about the responsibilities of religious leadership in times of moral crisis. It reminds us that institutions must balance pragmatic concerns with ethical imperatives, and that silence in the face of evil can itself become a moral choice with lasting consequences. For contemporary leaders facing complex ethical dilemmas, the Vatican's wartime history suggests the importance of maintaining moral clarity even when diplomatic caution seems expedient. It demonstrates how institutions, even those built on moral foundations, can become entangled in compromises that prioritize self-preservation over the values they claim to represent. Perhaps most importantly, it illustrates that history judges leaders not only by their success in preserving the institutions they lead, but by their courage in upholding the fundamental principles those institutions embody - a lesson that remains relevant for religious and secular authorities alike in our own troubled times.

About Author

Loading...

David I. Kertzer

Read more